I've always been wary about the US "spreading" democracy, given its recent history in Southeast Asia and Central America. And I really don't buy Nathan's analogy of the National Guard enforcing desegregation, however attractive that analogy is. Of course I don't wish to see the US rule the planet -- what was it that Isherwood said about the fall of the British Empire being the start of English civilization? I think in the long run being an Empire distorts the thinking of those at home, makes it easier for citizens to believe in and express empty platitudes, strengthens the hand of those in power, leads to corruption, and as history has shown us, ultimate demise.
I've laid out the reasons why I supported going into Afghanistan, and I understand that my support is in many ways a contradiction of what I said above. So be it. Life is full of contradictions. I stand by it regardless. As for Iraq, I am extremely dubious about the stated goals, again given recent history (the betrayal of the Shias is dramatized in David O. Russell's "Three Kings," a must-view right about now). I just don't see Bush and Co. uprooting the present Iraqi power structure and allowing the Kurds and Shias their own turf, while relegating the Sunnis to minority status. That the administration has to twist facts to gain support should be tip-off enough -- all those photos of gassed Kurds, as if it happened yesterday, and as if Washington was initially appalled. From a realpolitick standpoint, the best end result for the administration is Saddamism without Saddam, i.e. back to the good old days.
But on the other hand, I doubt that the Kurds and Shias are gonna stand for another suppression of their respective political and cultural desires, especially the Kurds, who've gotten a taste of independence in the protected zone. Iraq is a big country, filled with various nationalisms. How Bush and Blair will balance this with their own geopolitical designs, as well as Israeli, Turkish and Saudi interests, is anybody's guess.
Which brings me to Hitch. You're right -- he really sees this as a crusade for pluralism and multiethnic democracy. I truly wish he was right, but somehow don't think he is. There is the al-Qaeda element to consider, and he's already made the connection between Saddam and bin Laden that many in Washington don't see. If Iraq is the al-Qaeda staging ground Hitch is convinced it is, that's one thing, indeed an important thing. But his missives of late are aimed more at Saddam's dictatorship itself, that it is vile and must go. Of course it must go. If I truly thought we were in the process of a real liberation of Iraq, I could get behind it. But again, recent history . . .
Contrast the Hitch on the eve of this Gulf War:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12227453&method=full& siteid=50143
With the Hitch on the eve of the Previous Gulf War:
"The confrontation that opened on the Kuwaiti border in August 1990 was neither the first nor last battle in a long war, but it was a battle that now directly, overtly involved and engaged the American public and American personnel. The call was to an exercise in peace through strength. But the cause was yet another move in the policy of keeping a region divided and embittered, and therefore accessible to the franchisers of weaponry and the owners of black gold. An earlier regional player, Benjamin Disraeli, once sarcastically remarked that you could tell a weak government by its eagerness to resort to strong measures. The Bush administration uses strong measures to ensure weak government abroad, and has enfeebled democratic government at home. The reasoned objection must be that this is a dangerous and dishonorable pursuit, in which the wealthy gamblers have become much too accustomed to paying their bad debts with the blood of others."
DP